4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[AK65]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

It's the popular answer right now. I'm sure they all will soon enough.

I'm sure there were plenty of people with their heads buried in the sand on DVD forums in 2005. People don't want to face the reality that their blu ray collection is about to depreciate a lot.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by AK65

I'm sure there were plenty of people with their heads buried in the sand on DVD forums in 2005. People don't want to face the reality that their blu ray collection is about to depreciate a lot.

Define 'about to'.

How many years will pass before most of the titles in a typical collection will have been re-released?

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by AK65

I'm sure there were plenty of people with their heads buried in the sand on DVD forums in 2005. People don't want to face the reality that their blu ray collection is about to depreciate a lot.

At least they're backwards compatible. I don't plan on rebuying any movies I already own unless Star Wars or LOTR is released in 4K. Of course, I always said the same about upgrading to blu...lol

[Troll2fan]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

I don't plan on rebuying any movies I already own unless Star Wars or LOTR is released in 4K. Of course, I always said the same about upgrading to blu...lol

Same here for the most part. I can think of a handful of movies I own that I would buy again in 4k, but they're few and far between.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by AK65

It's hard to know how good HDR and wider color gamut are if people haven't seen it.

As to HDR, both unbiased anecdotal and scientific testing - http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrar...icleid=1910365 supports the claim of worthwhile value added.

Question is, for all things considered, how bright do you go? And the ambient lighting which be best.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by AK65

I'm sure there were plenty of people with their heads buried in the sand on DVD forums in 2005. People don't want to face the reality that their blu ray collection is about to depreciate a lot.

I'm just waiting for people to start saying that Blu-Ray is just as bad as DVD or VHS.

Seriously, though, everyone's collection has already depreciated. It starts to as soon as you buy a movie. There are a bunch of movies I paid $20-$25 for that I could get for less than $10 today. So I don't think anyone cares about their collection depreciating. I buy movies so I can watch them, not so I can stare at them and wonder how much money they're worth.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

I'm just waiting for people to start saying that Blu-Ray is just as bad as DVD or VHS. .

I would seriously hope not. I mean, I really doubt any of us wanting UHD 4K Blu-ray thinks that Blu-ray itself is a bad format. It is the best commercial home media format we have ever had. I just think that there is room for improvement and that UHD 4K Blu-ray promises to be the best we may ever have on home media because of the updates it will bring to releases put out on the format.

There will be TONS of Blu-ray releases which will NOT make it to 4K Blu-ray. I certainly will not plan on tossing those aside just because they aren't on that level. The same thing goes for my DVD's that I still have... a lot of independent films won't even make it to Blu-ray, unfortunately, so if I want them the DVD is sometimes the only real option.

[Kirsty_Mc]

... That's right... Blu-Rays are for watching.

I don't however agree that our collections will depreciate quickly and by much if at all. Initially I don't see a large UHD catalogue, so our 1080P Blu-Rays will still be the best consumer versions available. Also, a lot of titles where the source material is not of sufficient quality to justify a UHB Blu-Ray, the 1080p release will be the best available.

[HeavyHitter]

I'll be re-purchasing everything I can on UHD BD at some point (probably going to wait a year before jumping in), however, I do not expect some of my catalog titles to ever get new transfers...but quite a few definitely will as 4K masters already exist for them and surely more will be done at some point for older catalogs that can sell.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

It's the popular answer right now.

Agreed, I'm not terribly surprised at all.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by AK65

I'm sure there were plenty of people with their heads buried in the sand on DVD forums in 2005. People don't want to face the reality that their blu ray collection is about to depreciate a lot.

Or maybe it's you who doesn't want to face the reality that the difference between the jump from blu ray to 4K blu ray is nowhere near as big as the difference in the jump from DVD to blu ray in all kinds of ways, too many to mention.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

I'm just waiting for people to start saying that Blu-Ray is just as bad as DVD or VHS.

Why? DVD was not promoted as a better visual medium - it was a matter of being more reliable and durable than VHS.


I don't think anyone equates Blu-Ray and DVD.

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

Seriously, though, everyone's collection has already depreciated. It starts to as soon as you buy a movie. There are a bunch of movies I paid $20-$25 for that I could get for less than $10 today. So I don't think anyone cares about their collection depreciating. I buy movies so I can watch them, not so I can stare at them and wonder how much money they're worth.

That's an odd way to see a movie. I have several hundred films, and have no idea what I paid for each one, after only a couple of weeks.

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by AK65

It's hard to know how good HDR and wider color gamut are if people haven't seen it.

And that's the problem, they haven't seen it, I've been to a few industry demos at NAB, and it just knocks your sock off.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Why? DVD was not promoted as a better visual medium - it was a matter of being more reliable and durable than VHS.


I don't think anyone equates Blu-Ray and DVD.




That's an odd way to see a movie. I have several hundred films, and have no idea what I paid for each one, after only a couple of weeks.

Convenience is it's biggest selling point, like CD for music.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Why? DVD was not promoted as a better visual medium - it was a matter of being more reliable and durable than VHS.

I was only half-kidding. But when DVD first started coming out, all I heard people talking about was how much better the PQ was than VHS, so it was definitely promoted as a better visual medium, as well as being more reliable and durable.

[murphywmm]

Originally Posted by AK65

I'm sure there were plenty of people with their heads buried in the sand on DVD forums in 2005. People don't want to face the reality that their blu ray collection is about to depreciate a lot.

You're making the assumption that everything on Blu is going to get released on UHD-BD. I think you're going to have to face reality that it's not going to happen. Besides, discs don't hold their value unless it's a limited edition or OOP (and not mass-produced). I am quite sure most of us didn't buy Blu-ray discs with the intention to retire and get rich off them.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Why? DVD was not promoted as a better visual medium - it was a matter of being more reliable and durable than VHS.

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

I was only half-kidding. But when DVD first started coming out, all I heard people talking about was how much better the PQ was than VHS, so it was definitely promoted as a better visual medium, as well as being more reliable and durable.

Yes, it was definitely promoted as better..."twice/double the resolution of VHS"...better color..."theater quality multichannel sound"..., chapter search, menus, actor profiles, etc.

[GenPion]

The BDA really needs to come up with more specs for their HFR plans. I hope this can still become implemented better before the product launch.

Ang Lee has announced plans for his next film, which will be made in native 3D high resolution and with HFR. This is noteworthy as he is only the third director to jump into the HFR filming world. This kind of filming strategy basically duplicates what he did for Life of Pi while adding HFR technology into the mix. Knowing Ang Lee... and considering the amazing quality of Life of Pi (both as a film and technologically), this could be another important filmmaking effort which affects how Hollywood decides to implement and use HFR.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

sorry for the late reply on this one. I knew that UHD was going to support 1080p, I'm mainly wondering if we'll actually see that support if studios would rather upscale existing 2K transfers to 4K and call them 4K. I hope that doesn't happen. I also was hoping that the specs for 1080p in the UHD spec would be even higher than 4K given the less stringent requirements on bandwidth. I would love to see the 1080p specs maxed out more since they have the ability to do it even with the existing HDMI protocols.

technically UHD does not support 1080p the new BD profile supports 1080p using HVEC and the other stuff added with UHD. Personally I think that the 1080p stuff is there for extras.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

They could always do the old PAL trick and speed it up to 50 Hz (4% speed up). I believe that 50 Hz is a supported frame rate. That way there would be no judder, but the film would run just a little faster and the audio would be a little higher in tone.

Not ideal, but we in 50 Hz. territories are used to this compromise.

in the UK (and other countries who's electric current is 50 Hz) 50p is supported but not in the US (or other countries who's electric current is 60 Hz), it depends where you live.